Forging University Certificates Harms Institutional Reputation, Constitutes 'Injury' Under S.465 IPC; Police Can Take Handwriting Samples During Investigation: Kerala High Court - 2025-11-17

Kerala High Court Upholds Forgery Conviction, Rules Harm to University's Reputation is 'Injury' Under IPC

Ernakulam, Kerala - In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has upheld the conviction of a man for forging university certificates, establishing that such acts cause non-economic 'injury' to the reputation and credibility of academic institutions, thereby satisfying a key element of the offence of forgery under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The judgment, delivered by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. V. Balakrishnan, also clarified that investigating officers are permitted to take specimen handwriting samples from an accused during the investigation, even without a court order.

Case Background

The court was hearing a criminal revision petition filed by Mohammed Abbas, who was the first accused in a 2002 case involving a large-scale conspiracy to create and distribute fake certificates and mark lists from various universities, including Kerala University and Mahatma Gandhi University.

The prosecution's case began on August 7, 2002, when the Sub Inspector of Police, Kanjirappally, intercepted a car in which Abbas was travelling and found him in possession of numerous forged documents. A subsequent investigation unravelled a conspiracy involving ten accused who allegedly forged certificates, created counterfeit seals, and distributed the fake documents.

While the trial court acquitted most of the accused, it convicted Mohammed Abbas under Section 465 IPC (Punishment for Forgery), sentencing him to two years of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000. This conviction was upheld by the Additional Sessions Court, Kottayam, prompting Abbas to file the present revision petition before the High Court.

Key Arguments

Petitioner's Contentions: The counsel for the petitioner, Mohammed Abbas, raised two primary arguments:

1. Invalid Evidence: It was argued that the specimen handwriting (Ext.P9) taken by the police during the investigation was inadmissible as the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, does not explicitly permit officers to take handwriting samples.

2. Forgery Offence Not Made Out: Relying on past Supreme Court judgments, the petitioner contended that the offence of forgery requires proof of wrongful gain or loss, or an intent to defraud. Since there was no evidence that the seized certificates were used to cause any pecuniary loss or gain, the charge under Section 465 IPC was not attracted.

State's Submissions: The learned Public Prosecutor countered that the act of forgery caused significant non-economic injury to the reputation and credibility of the universities. She argued that this harm satisfied the definition of "fraudulently" under the IPC and that there was no legal bar on investigators collecting handwriting samples to aid the investigation.

Court's Analysis and Legal Precedents

On Admissibility of Handwriting Samples: Justice Balakrishnan rejected the petitioner's argument regarding the inadmissibility of the handwriting sample. The court distinguished an earlier High Court ruling by citing a recent three-judge bench decision of the Supreme Court in Santosh @ Bhure v. State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi (2023) . The Supreme Court in that case held that in the absence of any specific legal provision prohibiting it, an investigating agency has the power to collect material evidence, including specimen handwriting, to assist the prosecution. The High Court observed:

> "…in the light of the afore dictum and also considering the fact that no bar is placed in the Identification of Prisoners Act from taking specimen handwriting from the accused, I have no hesitation to find that there is no illegality in the investigating officer collecting specimen handwriting of the accused…"

On 'Injury' and Forgery: The court delved into the definitions of "forgery" (Sec 463) and "making a false document" (Sec 464). It noted that the act must be done "dishonestly" or "fraudulently." While "dishonestly" implies pecuniary gain or loss, "fraudulently" does not.

Citing the landmark Supreme Court decision in Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration (1963) , the court reiterated that "defraud" involves two elements: deceit and injury. Crucially, the injury need not be economic. The Apex Court had defined it as "any harm whatever caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or such others."

Applying this principle, Justice Balakrishnan concluded that forging university certificates causes profound reputational damage. The court stated: > "The expression ”such others” employed by the Apex Court in Dr.Vimla's case (cited supra) appears to be intended to operate as a residual category encompassing all forms of non-pecuniary injury… It is intended to cover every species of detriment that may not be expressly enumerated but is nonetheless real, intangible and directly attributable to the act of deceit. If so, it can include injury to institutional credibility, erosion/harm to public confidence, impairment of academic integrity, sanctity of officials seal, etc. Thus, forging of University Certificates/Mark lists as in the instant case, will undoubtedly, result in causing harm to the reputation, credibility and integrity of academic institutions apart from causing harm to the students and their future."

Final Verdict

The High Court upheld the conviction of Mohammed Abbas under Section 465 IPC, finding no illegality in the lower courts' concurrent findings of guilt.

However, considering the age of the petitioner (now 65), the prolonged period since the offence (committed in 2002), and other circumstances, the court modified the sentence. The sentence was reduced from two years to one year of simple imprisonment , while the fine of Rs. 10,000 was maintained.